New Cessna panel

Jay Honeck wrote:

(The Cessna website seems to be down, so I used
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/ for Skylane performance data.

They don't seem to have data for a 2004 182.

George Patterson
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux.

(The Cessna website seems to be down, so I used
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/ for Skylane performance data.

They don't seem to have data for a 2004 182.

I wasn't sure what a 2004 182 was called ("M?" "N?" "O?")

But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different. With
the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in any
single parameter?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different. With
the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in any
single parameter?

I would also be surprised to find that sort of improvement, but I can't say it's
not possible, How do you know Cessna's changes were "minor"? Do you really have
any idea what they changed?

George Patterson
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux.

I would also be surprised to find that sort of improvement, but I can't
say it's
not possible, How do you know Cessna's changes were "minor"? Do you really
have
any idea what they changed?

Um, well, they sure *look* the same as the old 182s.

I've read that they've cleaned up the airframe some, but the engine and prop
are still the same -- and the gross weight has gone up.

These are usually indications of a performance *decrease*, but maybe Cessna
has pulled some kind of magic?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Jay Honeck wrote:

But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different.
With
the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in
any
single parameter?


George Patterson
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a
completely
unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about
Linux.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

They don't seem to have data for a 2004 182.

I wasn't sure what a 2004 182 was called ("M?" "N?" "O?")

But I'd be surprised if the performance data was too much different. With
the minor changes Cessna has made, it certainly can't be 5% better in any
single parameter?

Um, well, Jay, we're up to "T" now. Mine is an "S." Ever since "Q" or "R"
we've had integral 88 gal fuel tanks and a range well in excess of 800 NM.
That's a far sight better than a 5% improvement in range.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Um, well, they sure *look* the same as the old 182s.

I've read that they've cleaned up the airframe some, but the engine and prop
are still the same -- and the gross weight has gone up.

These are usually indications of a performance *decrease*, but maybe Cessna
has pulled some kind of magic?

Um, well, the engine and prop are not the same. Cessna replaced the
Continental O-470, with a Lycoming IO-540, which eliminates the carb heat
and the premature top overhauls, and provides better fuel economy. (I never
burn more than 11.5 GPH compared to 12-13 for many older 182s.)

Um, well, the engine and prop are not the same. Cessna replaced the
Continental O-470, with a Lycoming IO-540, which eliminates the carb heat
and the premature top overhauls, and provides better fuel economy. (I
never
burn more than 11.5 GPH compared to 12-13 for many older 182s.)

Wow. You've got to be running at some pretty low power settings to achieve
11.5 GPH. We usually average between 13 and 15 gph on our O-540, at 23
squared, leaned using a JPI EDM-700 engine analyzer. (As measured with the
JPI FS-450 flow meter.).
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Wow. You've got to be running at some pretty low power settings to achieve
11.5 GPH. We usually average between 13 and 15 gph on our O-540, at 23
squared, leaned using a JPI EDM-700 engine analyzer. (As measured with the
JPI FS-450 flow meter.).

Flying where I do, I spend a lot of time between 9000 and 12000, so perhaps
I get better economy than those who fly lower. I'd have to have a
turbocharger to fly 23 squared. I might fly 22 squared or 21"/2300 RPM,
which is right about 65%.

At the weights I fly (usually a few hundred under MGTW) I often true out
around 143 kts.

The IO-540 on my Cessna seems very well balanced even without GAMIjectors.
I can fly quite a bit LOP without roughness, although I usually follow the
POH and just lean to peak EGT.

I keep an Excel spreadsheet of every flight I ever make, and every time I
add fuel. Whenever I top off, I run the spreadsheet to figure my average
economy since the last time I topped off. In all seriousness, I've never
seen 12 GPH. The number that most commonly turns up is 11.3 GPH.

As for the new panel that's the subject of the thread, I think it's a bit
much to put up front of a C182. I haven't even sprung for a color map GPS.
My KLN 89B is certified for IFR and it gets me where I'm going just fine.
This reminds me of the Archer at the local FBO, which is equipped with dual
430s and TCAS. I think for that much money, one should have an airplane
with a useful IFR range and ceiling, but hey, we all have our reasons for
what we fly.

I'm getting my first ride in an SR-22 next week as I've agreed to do some
safety pilot work for a buddy at work. Lands too fast and requires too much
runway for my taste, but it's a nice piece of engineering.

I keep an Excel spreadsheet of every flight I ever make, and every time I
add fuel.

Wow -- I'm not sure whether I should be impressed, or incredulous. :-)

I thought I was doing well to remember to write each flight in my logbook!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ci%hb.734179$YN5.656514@sccrnsc01...
| Basically, a new 2004 Cessna 182 will compete favorably with a Cirrus
| SR-22,
| but for about $50,000 less.
|
| Hmmm. I don't know what you consider "competing favorably", but the specs
| sure look weighted in favor of the Cirrus:

Well, OK, lets save only about $20,000 and go with the Turbo Skylane with
the Nav III package (the price reduction is not yet reflected on Cessna's
web site) over a similarly equipped Cirrus SR 22, remembering that the Turbo
Skylane uses a 235 hp IO 540 while the Cirrus while the Cirrus has to use
310 hp, and tell me if the Cirrus airframe is really all that more efficient
than that of the 182. We can also throw in a few corrected figures for the
normal Skylane.


|
| Cruise Speed
| Skylane: 141 knots

Turbo Skylane 175 knots
Skylane: 145 knots

| Cirrus: 180 knots
|
| Maximum Range
| Skylane: 550 nm (697 nm with optional extra fuel tanks)

Turbo Skylane: 886 nm
Skylane: 968 nm
Cirrus: They don't say under what conditions an SR 22 will get 1000+ nm, but
either they don't know or they won't admit that you could probably squeeze
as much mileage out of a 182.

| Cirrus: 1000+ nm
|
| Climb Rate
| Skylane: 980 fpm

Turbo Skylane: 1040 fpm
Skylane: 924 fpm

| Cirrus: 1400 fpm
|
| The only parameters the Skylane wins are for takeoff & landing distances:
|
| Takeoff over 50' Obstacle
| Skylane: 1205 ft

Turbo Skylane: 1385 ft
Skylane: 1514 ft

| Cirrus: 1575 ft
|
| Landing over 50' Obstacle
| Skylane: 1350 ft.
| Cirrus: 2325 ft

These stay the same

Useful load is better for the Cirrus:

Turbo Skylane: 1095 lbs
Skylane: 1213 lbs
Cirrus: 1150 lbs

Then there is the useful life of the airframe:

Skylane and Turbo Skylane: unlimited
Cirrus: 4030 hours

IIRC the Skylane and Turbo Skylane both have longer TBO on their engines
than the Cirrus SR 22, too.

Nav III Garmin G1000 package vs. Cirrus' Garmin 430 package: um, right.

I don't see enough value added in the SR22 to make it worth so much more
than either Skylane.

Of course, if you want to put your plane on floats or skis, you can forget
about the Cirrus entirely.

It may be a little unfair to mention that the 182 has one of the best safety
records of anything that flies, while the Cirrus has one of the worst.
Pilots are still getting used to the Cirrus' quirky handling and the fact
that the plane will not recover from even an incipient spin. The parachute
system has failed more often than it has worked. While we can blame Cirrus
airframes coming apart in the air on improper maintenance, we know that the
182 has never had an airframe failure and almost all mechanics know how to
work on them. But perhaps Cirrus will be able to work out its safety
problems, given time.